R. v. Fedan

R. v. Fedan

Minor drafting errors including a one-letter licence-plate mistake and other typographical or template issues did not render the warrant invalid; there was insufficient evidence that no inquiries were made about JJP availability so the telewarrant was not vitiated; the accused failed to establish a subjective expectation of privacy in the SDM so s.8 was not engaged, and even if it were, under s.24 the SDM evidence would not be excluded due to police good faith, minimal impact, and the evidence's reliability and importance.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1716
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Wayne Rodney Fedan
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (voir Dire #2)
Outcome
Application dismissed; challenged evidence admissible
Legal Topics
Section 8 Charter, Warrant Validity, Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, S.24 Charter Remedy, SDM (airbag Control Module) Seizure
Source Language
English
Charter Rights Search and Seizure Criminal Procedure Telewarrants Evidence Admissibility Section 8 Charter Warrant Validity Reasonable Expectation of Privacy +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Wayne Rodney Fedan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (voir Dire #2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of search warrant given incorrect licence plate and multiple drafting errors
  2. 2 Validity of telewarrant and sufficiency of averment that it was impracticable to appear before a justice of the peace
  3. 3 Whether seizure of the SDM without a warrant violated s.8 by infringing a reasonable expectation of privacy

Ratio Decidendi

Minor drafting errors including a one-letter licence-plate mistake and other typographical or template issues did not render the warrant invalid; there was insufficient evidence that no inquiries were made about JJP availability so the telewarrant was not vitiated; the accused failed to establish a subjective expectation of privacy in the SDM so s.8 was not engaged, and even if it were, under s.24 the SDM evidence would not be excluded due to police good faith, minimal impact, and the evidence's reliability and importance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; challenged evidence admissible

Orders

  • Application to exclude evidence dismissed
  • Evidence seized from the accused's vehicle on March 22, 2010, including blood, DNA, fingerprints, personal effects, identifying documentation, repair and maintenance documents, and the SDM (airbag control module), is admissible at trial